Post on 26-Mar-2015
transcript
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 2
Who we are: PBSRG OverviewWho we are: PBSRG Overview
Established in 1994 to assist clients in improving the quality of construction.
Research has grown into: Information Measurement Theory (IMT): measuring of current conditions to
predict future outcomes Clients implementation of Best-Value Performance Information Procurement
System (PIPS) Organizational Transformation Models New project management model (alignment/leadership instead of
management/influence) PIRMS New best value model New information environment (minimize access and flow of information) Testing of concepts outside of construction Risk management by using deductive logic, minimization of decision making
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
Worldwide as a leader in Best-Value Systems Conducting research since 1994 168 Publications 800+ Projects $4.6 Billion Services & Construction 5% Increase in Vendor profit 98% On-time, On-Budget, Customer satisfaction PMI, NIGP, IFMA, IPMA Tests in Netherlands, Botswana/Africa, Malaysia ASU – investments of over $100M due to BV
PBSRG’s Research Results(Performance Based Studies Research Group)
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 4
Research ClientsResearch Clients General Dynamics University of Minnesota General Services Administration (GSA) US Solar Heijmans, Netherlands Ministry of Transportation, Netherlands State of Alaska University of Alberta State of Oklahoma State of Idaho Idaho Transportation Department State of Oregon Arizona Parks and Recreation US Army Medical Command USAF Logistics Command University of New Mexico University of Idaho EVIT School District
Arizona State University US Corps of Engineers Arizona Public Service (APS) Salt River Project (SRP) Rochester Utility Boise State University Idaho State Lewis & Clark City of Phoenix, AZ City of Peoria, AZ City of Roseville, MN Olmstead County, MN Fann Environmental Brunsfield Fulbright Program /University of Botswana, Africa US Embassy, Bank of Botswana RMIT, Melbourne Australia Aramark, Canon, Qwest, ISP, HP, Chartwells, AP,
Pearson Various Contractors and Consultants
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 5
Working Commission 117 & JournalWorking Commission 117 & JournalInternational Efforts & PartnersInternational Efforts & Partners
5 years15 tests for infrastructureTwo major GCs
Fulbright ScholarUniversity of BotswanaPIPS tests RMIT
Teaching IMTPBSRG platform
Tongji University
BrunsfieldComplete Supply Chain
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
A little theory of thought…A little theory of thought…
6
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 7
Rules of this DiscussionRules of this Discussion This is a deductive presentation
Don’t take anything personal!!!
Recommend that you minimize decision making (if you don’t know, use the deductive logic)
Type A and Type C will be discussed. Neither is better than the other. Both are required. Both are just as important as the other.
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 8
Information Measurement TheoryInformation Measurement Theory
IMT Definition: Measurement of information to predict future outcomes
IMT Objectives: To minimize the need for decision making To understand why things happen To be able to predict future conditions To minimize the need for data To optimize results
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 9
LAWSLAWSThe Number of Laws of PhysicsThe Number of Laws of Physics
= =
Laws are not created…they are discovered
100% Laws
PAST
100% Laws
PRESENT
100% Laws
FUTURE
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 10
Initial conditions
Final conditions
An EventAn Event
Time
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 11
Initial conditions
Final conditions
Proposal: Proposal: The Event Can Only Happen One WayThe Event Can Only Happen One Way
Time
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 12
Deductive LogicDeductive Logic No event has had two outcomes
All event outcomes can be predicted with “all information” (initial conditions/laws)
The more information we have before the event, the easier it becomes to predict the final outcome.
The lack of information that an individual has, will never change the final outcome (it will just prevent that individual from predicting the outcome).
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
Things caused by a lack of information Believe in chance
Expectations
Believe in control
Makes decisions
Directs others
Influences others
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 14
Perceive
Process
Apply
Change
Cycle of LearningCycle of Learning
100%Information
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 15
Perceive
Process
Apply
Change
Learning SpeedsLearning SpeedsAll Individuals Learn At Different SpeedsAll Individuals Learn At Different Speeds
100%Information
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 16
More “perceptive” perceive ata faster rate, change at a fasterrate, and are more accurate with their predictions.
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 17
All individuals and organizations have a level of perception that allows them to predict “some” future outcomes.
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 18
““Types” of IndividualsTypes” of Individuals
Perceive
Pro
cess
Apply
Ch
an
ge
100%100%InformationInformation
Perc
ep
tion
of
Info
rmati
on
Time
A
C
0%
100%
B
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
To Understand the “A” and the “C” To Understand the “A” and the “C” Simplify the Rate of Change ModelSimplify the Rate of Change Model
A simple model is easy to understand
Simplicity is when things look very different
Eliminate all areas where things look alike (needs too much decision making)
Extremes minimize the decision making
Perc
ep
tion
of
Info
rmati
on
Time
A
C
0%
100%
B1
B2
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 20
Perc
ep
tion o
f In
form
ati
on
Time
A
Simplicity: Who perceives more Simplicity: Who perceives more information?information?
C
0%
100%
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 21
Time
Info
rmati
on
Level
0%
100%
A
C
Type “A” Individual vs. Type Type “A” Individual vs. Type “C” Individual“C” Individual
Aligns resourcesAligns resources Makes decisionsMakes decisions Flows more informationFlows more information InfluencesInfluences Wants a favorWants a favor Doesn’t documentDoesn’t document PreplansPreplans Shifts blame to othersShifts blame to others Likes to make decisionsLikes to make decisions Does not prioritizeDoes not prioritize Uses five words for every one Uses five words for every one
neededneeded
C
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 22
Time
Info
rmati
on
Level
0%
100%
A
C
Type “A” Individual vs. Type Type “A” Individual vs. Type “C” Individual“C” Individual
Aligns resourcesAligns resources Very detailed workVery detailed work Proud of technical skillsProud of technical skills Is more expensiveIs more expensive Wants consensusWants consensus Likes doing totally new thingsLikes doing totally new things Does things they understandDoes things they understand Requests detailsRequests details Traditional practicesTraditional practices Thinks other people act differentlyThinks other people act differently Believes experts have riskBelieves experts have risk
C
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 23
Time
Info
rmati
on
Level
0%
100%
A
C
Type “A” Entity vs. Type “C” Type “A” Entity vs. Type “C” EntityEntity
Knows who to work with Knows who to work with Implements leadership trainingImplements leadership training Measurement of performanceMeasurement of performance Uses dominant informationUses dominant information MeasuresMeasures Has a conservative planHas a conservative plan Constantly changes their mindConstantly changes their mind Use relationshipsUse relationships
C
A
C
C
A
A
A
A
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 24
RSRS
LSLS
Time
Info
rmati
on
Level
0%
100%
AA
CC
How to Create a KSM How to Create a KSM Left Side (LS) (Type A) vs. Right Side (RS) (Type C)Left Side (LS) (Type A) vs. Right Side (RS) (Type C)
+ =
RSRS
LSLS
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 25
Time
Info
rmati
on
Level
0%
100%
A
C
Where is Control?Where is Control?
No
In
form
atio
n
Info
rmat
ion
LS RS
No
Co
ntr
ol
Co
ntr
ol
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 26
Time
Info
rmati
on
Level
0%
100%
A
C
Where is Management?Where is Management?
No
In
form
atio
n
Info
rmat
ion
No
Co
ntr
ol
Co
ntr
ol
LS RS RS
Lea
de
rsh
ip
Man
ag
emen
t
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 27
Time
Info
rmati
on
Level
0%
100%
A
C
Decision Making?Decision Making?
No
In
form
atio
n
Info
rmat
ion
No
Co
ntr
ol
Co
ntr
ol
LS RS
Lea
de
rsh
ip
Man
ag
emen
t
RS
No
De
cisi
on
Mak
ing
RS
Dec
isio
n M
akin
g
Co
ntr
ol
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 28
Plot the Following Plot the Following CharacteristicsCharacteristics
Leadership Alignment Efficiency Change the behavior of others Believe in chance Emotion Becomes the expert in the organization Technical Continuous Improvement Freedom Believes in range/diversity Proactive
LSLS
LSLS
LSLS
RSRS
RSRS
RSRS
RSRS
RSRS
LSLS
LSLS
LSLS
LSLS
LS
RS
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 29
Plot the Following Plot the Following CharacteristicsCharacteristics
LS
RS
Logical Overview/Process Details Focuses “why” Focuses “what” Measures Performance Accountable Reactive Telescope “in and out” “What if” Maximize information flow Loves meetings
LSLS
LSLS
RSRS
LSLS
RSRS
LSLS
LSLS
RSRS
LSLS
RSRS
RSRS
RSRS
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 30
Plot the Following Plot the Following CharacteristicsCharacteristics
LS
RS
Does not believe in being controlled Captain of their own ship Can change others “Source of Light” or wisdom to influence all “Mirror” so others can see themselves Can influence anyone Believe in randomness No control over their destiny Feels controlled More activity Incentives Looks inside to improve environment Has a more conducive environment to change
LSLS
LSLS
RSRS
RSRS
LSLS
RSRS
RSRS
RSRS
RSRS
RSRS
RSRS
LSLS
LSLS
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
ConclusionsConclusions
The environment is the person
All characteristics can be related to the amount of information
By using extreme values, deductive logic can be used
Type A characteristics are related
To move to a Type A environment, we must minimize Type C characteristics
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 32
QuestionsQuestions Is there anything that happens that is not predictable?
Does anything happen by chance (was not predictable if all the information was known)?
Who is more important to the event, the A or the C?
Is there a random event that has been identified by science?
Why do people like complexity?
Who makes more decisions?
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
So What is the Big Picture?So What is the Big Picture?
Where are we going with Where are we going with this?this?
33
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 34
Perceive
Process
Apply
Change
Cycle of LearningCycle of Learning
100%Information
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 35
Q: When do we know 50% of what Q: When do we know 50% of what we will ever know?we will ever know?
0% Information 100% Information
Life Span
50% Information? 50% Information?50% Information?
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 36
Proposal: When we are almost dead.Proposal: When we are almost dead.
0% Information
100% Information(what we will know)
50% Information
Life Span
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 37
Q: How much do we know about Q: How much do we know about everything?everything?
0% Information 100% Information
% Known
This Much? This Much?This Much?
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 38
Proposal: We don’t know very muchProposal: We don’t know very much
0% Information 100% Information
% of Information
What we don’t know
Wh
at w
e k
now
As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.
- Socrates
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 39
Q: How do we solve what we don’t Q: How do we solve what we don’t know? (aka Risk)know? (aka Risk) Do we use what we know to solve what we don’t know?
OR Do we use logic to solve what we don’t know?
0% Information 100% Information
% of Information
What we don’t know
Wh
at w
e k
now
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 40
A: Logic can be applied without A: Logic can be applied without knowledge/experienceknowledge/experience
0% Information 100% Information
% of Information
What we don’t know
Log
ic
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 41
What is the model?What is the model?Identify the expert with as little effort as possible, using
measurement and differentialTransfer risk and control to the expert through preplanning
and risk minimization, focusing on risk that are not controlledHire the expertUse alignment, planning, & measurement in place of
management, control, and directionCreate a performance information environment to drive
accountability and changeProactive vs. Reactive Supply chain (us mentality)Logic vs. ExperiencePredictable vs. Chance
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 42
Industry Performance and CapabilityIndustry Performance and Capability
Highly Trained
MediumTrained
Vendor XCustomers
OutsourcingOwner
PartneringOwner
PriceBased
MinimalExperience
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
Initial conditions
Final conditions
An Event
Time
Laws Laws
Risk is deviation fromexpected measurements
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
Initial conditions
Final conditions
Traditional Management
Time
Laws Laws
D2
D1 M&C
D3
D1: Client makes decisions on budget, time, and expectation
D2: Client consultant/professional makes more decisions to make expectations true
D3: Vendors attempt to use the lowest possible price to minimize the risk caused by the decision making of client & consultant/professional
M&C: The client attempts to force vendor to make expectations happen
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
Initial conditions
Final conditions
New PM and RM Model that Depends on Efficiency
Time
Laws Laws
M1
D1 M3
M2
M1: Measured designed option that more accurately describe the initial conditions replaces D1
M2: The best value vendor that replaces the client/professional design M1
M3: WRR/RMP measures deviation
M4: Final performance measurement
M4
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 46
Inefficiency vs EfficiencyInefficiency vs Efficiency
Micro-Management Performance dictated by technical
information Specification is the requirement Inspection by client Client’s professional is the expert and has
control No performance measurements Increase flow of information Relationships (partnering, deals, give and
take) used to solve issues Need more people (inefficient) No accountability
Leadership Performance dictated by performance
information Specification is only the intent
Quality control by contractor Vendor has control Performance measurements Decrease flow of information High performance vendors used to
minimize risk Need less people (efficient) Accountability
Can you make the transition?
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 47
Performance-Based Performance-Based FunctionsFunctions
I. Price-Based
II. Performance-Based
IV. Unstable Market
III. Negotiated
Competition
Pe
rfo
rman
ce
Low High
High
Treat as a Commodity Volume Based No Accountability Finger Pointing Management & Inspection Minimum Standards Client minimizes risk
Value & Performance Maximize Profit Vendor Accountability Minimized Management & Inspection Quality Control Vendor minimizes risk
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 48
Best Value OverviewBest Value Overview Complete business model for organizations & projects
A best value selection and management tool (developed and tested over 16 years)
It can be applied to any type of system, organization, structure, procurement, project, or need
Best Value is not just a procurement method. It is a selection and management tool that can be applied in: Business Services (IT, dining, consultants, equipment, doc mgmt, insurance, etc.) Facility Services (maintenance, roofing, janitorial, landscaping, supplies, etc.) Design, bid, build (DBB), Design build (DB), Construction manager at risk (CMAR) A/E & Design, Job Order Contracting (JOC), Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity
BV is not a computer software package, but rather a combination of IMT principles that allows a client to make an informed decision
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
What does the Best Value Model do?What does the Best Value Model do?
Makes things simple (measurement, dominant information)
Minimizes the fuel of bureaucracy (decision making, non-dominant information, management, control, and direction)
Creates transparency
Allows organizations/vendors to be highly efficient and successful
Proposes that to accurately identify what “is” and then to have a plan to efficiently meet the needs will minimize risk
49
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 50
Silo Buster – Make Things SimpleSilo Buster – Make Things SimpleP
lann
ing
/ Pro
gram
min
g
Des
igne
r/E
ngin
eerin
g
Con
trac
ting
Con
trac
tors
/ M
anuf
actu
rers
Use
rs
Insp
ecto
rs
Sim
plic
ity/D
omin
ant
Info
rmat
ion
Technical Details
30K Foot Level
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 51
Best Value System: Best Value System: PIPS & PIRMSPIPS & PIRMS
Identification of PotentialBest-Value
Pre Planningand
Risk Management
Measurement ofDeviation from the
Expectation
PHASE 1PHASE 1 PHASE 2PHASE 2 PHASE 3PHASE 3
51
PIPS PIRMSPerformance Information
Procurement SystemPerformance Information Risk Management System
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 52
Filter 1Past
PerformanceInformation
Filter 2Proposal & RAVA Plan
Filter 4Prioritization
(Identify Best Value)
Filter 5Pre-Planning
Phase
Filter 6Weekly
Report &Post-Rating
Time
Qua
lity
of V
endo
rs
Filter 3Interview
Key Personnel
Awar
d
High
Low
BV ProcessBV Process
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 53
Filter 1Past
PerformanceInformation
Filter 2Proposal & RAVA Plan
Filter 4Prioritization
(Identify Best Value)
Filter 5Pre-Planning
Phase
Filter 6Weekly
Report &Post-Rating
Time
Qua
lity
of V
endo
rs
Filter 3Interview
Key Personnel
Awar
d
High
Low
Getting Started:Getting Started:Developing a BV RequirementDeveloping a BV Requirement
Setup Phase
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
Touching Base….Touching Base….Remember, goal of doing something different is to be better
than you are right now
Which means you have to change….
And people don’t like to change….
So before implementing anything new in your organization let’s think through what we should do…
54
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 55
Key Factors Before Key Factors Before Implementing PIPSImplementing PIPS Most organizations are slow to change
(Type C), and most individuals in these organizations are slow to change (Type C). Therefore, you cannot force the entity to change overnight.
Change must be slow.
Implement BV (or any new system) as a pilot test.
Do not educate the entire organization on the PIRMS process. Keep it under the radar so everyone feels comfortable.
The process must create a win-win. TimeIn
form
ati
on
Level
0%
100%
A
C
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 56
Critical Factors of SuccessCritical Factors of Success Setup Phase
Identify core group Identify strategic plan / goals Identify and measure current level of performance Prepare critical documents / process
Testing Phase Implement BV on pilot projects or groups
Documentation and Modification Phase Analyze implementation Make modifications based on proper concepts and principles Educate
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 57
The Core GroupThe Core Group The Core Group is a small group of individuals that will handle all functions
of the Pilot Program. Core group is vital to long-term success.
Core group must be carefully selected based on proper characteristics
Core Group might include: Upper Management (Boss) Business Analyst Project Manager Procurement Officer Subject Area: IT, Facilities / Engineering, etc.
Core Group must be heavily educated on concepts. That is they need to understand the “why” not just the “what”
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 58
Identifying Current Level of Identifying Current Level of PerformancePerformance A client should identify their current level of performance (to use as a
comparison).
For example Total size ($) Performance of incumbent (OT, OB, 1-10) Original proposal vs actual & current results Number of projects procured per year Average change order rate Average project delay or number of issues Overall customer satisfaction
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 59
Establish The Strategic Establish The Strategic PlanPlan
Strategic
Plan
There are two main categories of activities that may jeopardize the sustainability of a best-value organizational transformation. These areas are performance risk and political risk.
Performance risk is the risk of the vendor not completing the project within the financial projections, performance requirements, or to the satisfaction of the user. This risk can be mitigated by implementing the Best-Value selection process and the weekly risk report.
Political risk includes resistance from both internal and external parties, including; business services & procurement personnel, upper management, project management, and the vendors. Political risk is more difficult to minimize and will take the greatest amount of effort.
To minimize political risk, a long-term strategic plan must be established which outlines how the user will get to where they want to go.
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 60
The Strategic PlanThe Strategic PlanStrategic
Plan
A strategic plan is essential to the long-term success of a best-value program.
The strategic plan must be established before beginning a pilot program and should be documented in writing.
By having the strategic plan in writing, all decisions can be minimized by simply following the outline of the plan.
The majority of users have not established strategic plans.
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 61
Contents of the Strategic Contents of the Strategic PlanPlan Client must establish goals (short term / long term).
Potential goals/metrics may include: Increase vendor performance (OT, OB) Reduction in change orders Increase customer satisfaction Increasing (or maintaining) current level of competition Reducing the amount of management time Reducing procurement time Minimize any litigation Increase efficiency of project managers
Education/Implementation strategy (w/ risks & plans)
Schedule
Strategic
Plan
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 62
All Research Must Relate All Research Must Relate Back To The Strategic PlanBack To The Strategic Plan No meetings / decisions should be set without establishing the strategic
plan / goals of the research.
Any decisions that must be made must have an impact to the strategic plan. Meetings to have Who to educate Pilot projects to select Speed of implementation
Strategic
Plan
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
Duties of Core GroupDuties of Core Group Be educated Educate others (inside and outside your organization) Maintain and enhance the strategic plan Ensure there is a maintained weekly report for the whole effort
Ensure there is a maintained WRR for each project effort as soon as it starts
Maintain the directors report Maintain an up to date case study at all times Be able to show the value of the Best Value effort at all times
DR, WRR, Case Study, others Integrate with other clients and users Help ensure the vendors’ success
63
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 64
RFP ObstaclesRFP Obstacles In most cases, BV can be incorporated into any user/client with very little
modification.
However, experience has shown that the resistance of individuals are the greatest obstacle to creating change. The most common statements are: “This is not the way we normally do it...” “I recommended that you change the process to do this...” “It makes more sense to do it this way...” “I don’t think this is legal...” “Let me play devil’s advocate…”
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 65
Should We Issue A Should We Issue A Budget?Budget?The owner wants the best-available option that meets the
requirements.
Requirements are: Time constraints Cost constraints Quality
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 66
Minimizing Budget RiskMinimizing Budget Risk“To Share” or “Not to Share” – the Budget
If “To Share” Risk: If cheaper than budgeted – vendors will come up to
the budget Risk: If more expensive than budgeted – vendors will come
down and look to change orders for margin Advantage: Gives high performers the edge in identifying it
as a risk – offer solutions (differentiation) Reality: Still have price competition& cost reasonableness
so budget knowledge only helps high performers and puts low performers at a disadvantage
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 67
Minimizing Budget RiskMinimizing Budget RiskIf “To Not Share”
Risk: Estimates can be too high, with no offerings of risk minimization
Risk: If one very low bidder, can cause confusion in BV selection
Advantages: Don’t worry about price gouging (but so few bidders now days)
Reality: Helps non-performers be more competitive
Conclusion Greater risk in not giving the budget than giving it No real risk in giving the budget – only perceived risk
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 68
Low PerformerLow Performer
Can a low-performer ever give you high performance? “No, by definition, they are a low
performer.”
How does a low-performer increase their competitiveness? “Since they can’t change their
current level of performance, they must be the best at....$$$$”
Contractor 1
Contractor 2
Contractor 3
Contractor 4
Perf
orm
an
ce
High
Low
Ris
k
High
Low
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 69
Impact of No Budget
Contractor 1
Contractor 2
Contractor 3
Contractor 4
Perf
orm
an
ce
High
Low
Ris
k
High
Low
Contractor 1Contractor 2Contractor 3
Pri
ce
High
Low
Contractor 4
Giving out your budget has no impact to a low-performer
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 70
PIPS Best Value SystemPIPS Best Value System
Identification of PotentialBest-Value
Pre Planningand
Risk Management
Measurement ofDeviation from the
Expectation
PHASE 1PHASE 1 PHASE 2PHASE 2 PHASE 3PHASE 3
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
Go to PA 1-3Go to PA 1-3
71
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 72
Filter 1Past
PerformanceInformation
Filter 2Current Project
Information
Filter 4Identify Potential
Best Value
Filter 5Pre-Award
Phase
Filter 6Weekly
Report &Post-
Rating
Time
Qualit
y o
f V
endors
Filter 3Interview
Aw
ard
High
Low
AwardAward
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 73
Filter 1Past
PerformanceInformation
Filter 2Current Project
Information
Filter 4Identify Potential
Best Value
Filter 5Pre-Award
Phase
Filter 6Weekly
Report &Post-
Rating
Time
Qualit
y o
f V
endors
Filter 3Interview
Aw
ard
High
Low
Filter 6 – Weekly Risk ReportFilter 6 – Weekly Risk Report
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 74
Weekly Reporting SystemWeekly Reporting System Excel Spreadsheet that tracks only unforeseen risks on a project
Client will setup and send to vendor once Award/NTP issued
Vendor must submit the report every week (Friday).
The final project rating will be impacted by the accuracy and timely submittal of the WRS
W W W . P B S R G . C O M75
Unforeseen Risks
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY• Vendor Performance• Client Performance• Individual Performance• Project Performance
RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN• Risk• Risk Minimization• Schedule
WEEKLY REPORT• Risk• Unforeseen Risks
Management by Risk Management by Risk MinimizationMinimization
METRICS• Time linked• Financial• Operational/Client Satisfac.• Environmental
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
Overview of SHIP Test Overview of SHIP Test ObjectivesObjectives Establish contract with SHIP provider for college students in Idaho
BSU Objectives: Maximize value (performance and cost) of SHIP Have an environment of risk minimization and performance
measurement Minimize client effort in selection and management Minimize decision making Education of PIPS Measurement of differential
BSU would like to create a “consortium” of universities/colleges in Idaho for a single SHIP contract
76
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
DeliverablesDeliverables Major project deliverables include:
1. Set and Educate Project core team and2. Set BSU Strategic Plan3. Capture current level of performance and cost
Plan providers Cost structure Program structure and details Identify differentials, gaps, and overlaps
4. Create RFP5. Educate Vendors6. Run Selection and Interviews7. Run Pre-Planning and Risk Management8. Award & Transition9. Establish and maintain measurement system
77
W W W . P B S R G . C O M State of Idah
o
OverviewOverview Create a statewide Student Health Insurance Plan (SHIP) consortium Create a statewide Student Health Insurance Plan (SHIP) consortium
Boise State University (BSU)Boise State University (BSU) Idaho State University (ISU)Idaho State University (ISU) Lewis-Clark State College (LCSC)Lewis-Clark State College (LCSC)
3-Year Contract | $36 Million3-Year Contract | $36 Million
Measurements of SuccessMeasurements of Success1.1. Reduce internal University program administration costsReduce internal University program administration costs2.2. Maintain or increase Customer Satisfaction (University & Students)Maintain or increase Customer Satisfaction (University & Students)3.3. Maintain or increase cost-effectiveness of program to studentsMaintain or increase cost-effectiveness of program to students
W W W . P B S R G . C O M State of Idah
o
What Should We Include In What Should We Include In RFP?RFP? Request For Information (RFI)
General request to vendors Ask vendors what information they need to see in the RFP to create
and provide an accurate proposal Has no contractual implications, just providing information to the
client
Filter 1Past
PerformanceInformation
Filter 2Proposal & RAVA Plan
Filter 4Prioritize (Identify
Best Value)
Filter 5Pre-Award
Phase (Pre-Plan)
Filter 6Weekly
Report &Post-Rating
Time
Qua
lity
of V
endo
rs
Filter 3Interview
High
Low
RFI RFP
W W W . P B S R G . C O M State of Idah
o
Selection Criteria & WeightsSelection Criteria & Weights Responding contractors were evaluated on:Responding contractors were evaluated on:
Premiums (Student, Spouse, Dependents) Premiums (Student, Spouse, Dependents) (200 Points)(200 Points)
Interviews Interviews (350 Points)(350 Points) Program Administrator Program Administrator Claims Administrator Claims Administrator Waiver Administrator Waiver Administrator Data Base Manager Data Base Manager Marketing Manager Marketing Manager
Risk Assessment and Value Added (RAVA) plan Risk Assessment and Value Added (RAVA) plan (250 Points)(250 Points) Risk Assessment – ability to identify and minimize potential risk unique to this projectRisk Assessment – ability to identify and minimize potential risk unique to this project Value Added Option – ability to add value to the project in terms of time, money or qualityValue Added Option – ability to add value to the project in terms of time, money or quality
Scope Plan Scope Plan (50 Points)(50 Points) Concise synopsis of the work that will be performed (major tasks, steps, or work packages). Concise synopsis of the work that will be performed (major tasks, steps, or work packages). Vendors impression of how they will achieve the objectives of the consortium Vendors impression of how they will achieve the objectives of the consortium
Past Performance Information Past Performance Information (150 Points)(150 Points) FirmFirm Program AdministratorProgram Administrator
W W W . P B S R G . C O M State of Idah
o
81
Filter 1Past
PerformanceInformation
Filter 2Proposal & RAVA Plan
Filter 4Prioritize (Identify
Best Value)
Filter 5Pre-Award
Phase (Pre-Plan)
Filter 6Weekly
Report &Post-
Rating
Time
Qualit
y o
f V
endors
Filter 3Interview
High
Low
Summary of Proposal Summary of Proposal SubmittalSubmittal
Proposal Includes:1) Cost/Financial Information2) RAVA Plan (3)3) Scope Plan (2)4) PPI
W W W . P B S R G . C O M State of Idah
o
Coverage/Plan Coverage/Plan CharacteristicsCharacteristics
Consortium goal was to standardize coverage between all three University's Consortium goal was to standardize coverage between all three University's (to maximum extent possible). However, deviations were made as necessary (to maximum extent possible). However, deviations were made as necessary (BSU athletic coverage, ISU RX Coverage, Capitated Fee, etc)(BSU athletic coverage, ISU RX Coverage, Capitated Fee, etc)
Consortium goal was to increase plan characteristics (to provide better Consortium goal was to increase plan characteristics (to provide better coverage for students)coverage for students)
NO CRITERIA BSU ISU LCSC CONSORTIUM
1 Deductible Per Academic Year (In-Network) $250 $250 $250 $250
2 Deductible Per Academic Year (Out-Of-Network) $500 $250 $250 $500
3 Maximum Benefit (Standard) $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000
4 In-Network Coinsurance 80% 80% 80% 80%
5 In-Network Max out of Pocket $4,000 No MOP No MOP $4,000
6 Out-Of-Network Coinsurance 50% 60% 80% 60%
7 Out-Of-Network Max out of Pocket $6,000 No MOP No MOP $6,000
8 RX Drug Coverage (Max) $400 None $500 $500*
W W W . P B S R G . C O M State of Idah
o
SHIP AnalysisSHIP AnalysisNO CRITERIA
DETAILED WEIGHTS
FIRM A FIRM C FIRM D FIRM E FIRM F
1 Cost - Overall Annual Cost to Consortium 50 $12,237,529 $11,051,451 $11,437,893 $12,928,466 $13,063,2352 Cost - BSU Annual Student Premium (per-student per-year cost): 38 $1,772 $1,552 $1,685 $1,806 $1,9143 Cost - BSU Annual Spouse Premium (per-individual per-year cost): 6 $2,200 $3,992 $2,865 $3,066 $3,2484 Cost - BSU Annual Dependent Premium (per-individual per-year cost): 6 $1,886 $2,249 $2,444 $2,124 $3,6165 Cost - ISU Annual Student Premium (per-student per-year cost): 38 $1,267 $1,185 $1,113 $1,394 $1,2596 Cost - ISU Annual Spouse Premium (per-individual per-year cost): 6 $1,660 $3,048 $2,827 $2,937 $3,6277 Cost - ISU Annual Dependent Premium (per-individual per-year cost): 6 $1,424 $1,717 $1,209 $2,038 $1,5518 Cost - LCSC Annual Student Premium (per-student per-year cost): 38 $1,228 $1,244 $1,298 $1,484 $1,6159 Cost - LCSC Annual Spouse Premium (per-individual per-year cost): 6 $1,626 $3,200 $3,300 $3,066 $2,222
10 Cost - LCSC Annual Dependent Premium (per-individual per-year cost): 6 $1,394 $1,803 $1,411 $2,124 $2,31011 Interview Rating - The Program Administrator 175 6.7 7.7 7.1 7.4 7.412 Interview Rating - The Claims Administrator 70 6.6 6.1 4.6 5.3 8.313 Interview Rating - The Waiver Administrator 35 5.8 7.6 5.4 6.0 6.014 Interview Rating - The Data Base Manager 35 5.2 5.0 3.9 4.6 4.615 Interview Rating - The Marketing Manager 35 7.8 6.4 5.0 8.1 8.117 RAVA Plan Rating 250 7.42 6.25 7.42 5.58 5.1718 Work Plan Rating 50 6.67 7.17 6.33 5.50 5.5819 PPI - Firm - Satisfaction with the associated costs of the service 14 9.7 9.1 9.9 10.0 10.020 PPI - Firm - Satisfaction with the benefits provided by the service 14 9.9 9.5 10.0 10.0 10.021 PPI - Firm - Ability to manage the service / program 14 9.9 9.8 10.0 10.0 10.022 PPI - Firm - Ability to document and provide accurate reports 14 9.8 9.9 9.9 10.0 10.023 PPI - Firm - Overall customer satisfaction 14 10.0 9.8 9.8 10.0 10.024 PPI - Firm - Number of different projects 14 10.0 20.0 9.0 10.0 10.025 PPI - Firm - Number of different customer responses 14 10.0 20.0 9.0 10.0 10.026 PPI - Administrator - Satisfaction with the associated costs of the service 7 9.7 10.0 9.8 10.0 10.027 PPI - Administrator - Satisfaction with the benefits provided by the service 7 9.9 10.0 9.9 10.0 10.028 PPI - Administrator - Ability to manage the service / program 7 9.9 10.0 9.9 10.0 10.029 PPI - Administrator - Ability to document and provide accurate reports 7 9.8 10.0 9.7 10.0 10.030 PPI - Administrator - Overall customer satisfaction 7 10.0 10.0 9.7 10.0 10.031 PPI - Administrator - Number of different projects 7 10 10 10 10 1032 PPI - Administrator - Number of different customer responses 7 10 10 10 10 10
W W W . P B S R G . C O M State of Idah
o
Analysis of ProposalsAnalysis of Proposals
Total Score: 923 916 886 831 840
NO CRITERIA FIRM A FIRM C FIRM D FIRM E FIRM F
1 Cost - Average Student Premium $1,422 $1,327 $1,365 $1,561 $1,596
2 Cost - Average Spouse & Dependent Premium $1,698 $2,668 $2,343 $2,559 $2,762
3 Average Interview Rating 6.4 6.6 5.2 6.3 6.9
4 RAVA Plan Rating 7.4 6.3 7.4 5.6 5.2
5 Work Plan Rating 6.7 7.2 6.3 5.5 5.6
6 PPI - 1-10 Rating 9.9 9.7 9.9 10.0 10.0
7 PPI - Number of projects and clients 10 17 9 10 10
W W W . P B S R G . C O M State of Idah
o
Overall Best-Value ResultsOverall Best-Value Results
Best-Value Results:Best-Value Results: Student Premium has Student Premium has decreaseddecreased by by 2%2% (-$26) (-$26) Spouse & Dependent Premium has Spouse & Dependent Premium has decreaseddecreased by by 19%19% (-$519) (-$519) In general, Benefits/Coverage have been increasedIn general, Benefits/Coverage have been increased
School Premiums 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010Average
Increase Per Year ($)
Average Increase Per
Year (%)Student $1,012 $1,182 $1,263 $1,385 $124 11%
Spouse & Dependent $1,843 $2,022 $2,104 $2,220 $126 6%
• Previous Program:Previous Program:– Student Premiums increased $124/year (past 4 years)Student Premiums increased $124/year (past 4 years)– Spouse & Dependent Premiums increased $126/yearSpouse & Dependent Premiums increased $126/year
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
Case Study: ASUFood Services Contract
No Summary Criteria ScaleFirm A
(Incumbent)Firm B Firm C
1 RAVA Plan (1-10) 5.9 7.1 6.32 Transition Milestone Schedule (1-10) 5.2 7.0 6.33 Interview (1-25) 15.8 16.8 13.54 Past Performance Information - Survey (1-10) 9.8 10.0 9.85 Past Performance Information - #/Clients Raw # 5.7 3.0 4.46 Past Performance Information - Financial (1-10) 7.0 8.7 6.97 Financial Rating (1-10) 4.0 8.0 8.08 Financial Return - Commissions Raw $ 30,254,170$ 60,137,588$ 64,000,000$ 9 Capital Investment Plan Raw $ 14,750,000$ 20,525,000$ 12,340,000$
10 Equipment Replacement Reserve Raw $ 7,213,342$ 4,100,001$ 8,171,811$ 52,217,512$ 84,762,589$ 84,511,811$ Finanical Totals
No Summary Criteria ScaleFirm A
(Incumbent)Firm B Firm C
1 RAVA Plan (1-10) 5.9 7.1 6.32 Transition Milestone Schedule (1-10) 5.2 7.0 6.33 Interview (1-25) 15.8 16.8 13.54 Past Performance Information - Survey (1-10) 9.8 10.0 9.85 Past Performance Information - #/Clients Raw # 5.7 3.0 4.46 Past Performance Information - Financial (1-10) 7.0 8.7 6.97 Financial Rating (1-10) 4.0 8.0 8.08 Financial Return - Commissions Raw $ 30,254,170$ 60,137,588$ 64,000,000$ 9 Capital Investment Plan Raw $ 14,750,000$ 20,525,000$ 12,340,000$
10 Equipment Replacement Reserve Raw $ 7,213,342$ 4,100,001$ 8,171,811$ 52,217,512$ 84,762,589$ 84,511,811$ Finanical Totals
$32 Million Dollars (Over 10 Years)
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
After 1 Year: Monitoring Based on Measurements Increase sale of food by 14% Increased cash to ASU by 23% Minimized management cost by 80% Increased customer satisfaction by 37% Increased capital investment by 100%
1 Total Revenue ($M) 27.02$ 30.83$ 3.81$ 14%
2 Total Return & Commissions ($M) 2.17$ 2.67$ 0.50$ 23%
3 Captial Investment Contract ($M) 14.75$ 30.83$ 18.08$ 109%
4 Captial Investment 2006 vs. 2007 ($M) 0.26$ 5.70$ 5.44$ 2092%
5 ASU Administration (# of People) 7 1.5 -5.5 -79%
6 Customer (Student) Satisfaction (1-10) 5.2 7.1 1.9 37%
7 Myster Shopper Satisfaction N/A 9.6 -- --
CategoryNoFY 06-07
IncumbentFY 07-08
New VendorDifference % Difference
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
2009 Performance Metrics2009 Performance MetricsNo Catergory
YTD Prior Year YTD Actual
Var Act. vs PY
Var Act. vs PY %
1 Mandatory Meal Plan Sales - Meals ($K) (Meal Swipes) 8,915.5$ 8,212.2$ (703.3)$ -7.9%2 Voluntary Meal Plan Sales - Meals($K) (Meal Swipes) 294.2$ 404.1$ 109.9$ 37.4%3 Retail Sales ($K) 15,408.1$ 17,320.4$ 1,912.3$ 12.4%4 Catering Sales ($K) 2,329.1$ 2,526.5$ 197.4$ 8.5%5 Camp/Conference Sales ($K) -$ 865.2$ 865.2$ #DIV/0!6 All Other Sales (Subcontractors & Sushi) ($K) 3,030.9$ 3,807.2$ 776.2$ 25.6%7 TOTAL REVENUE 29,977.8$ 33,135.6$ 3,157.8$ 10.5%8 Commissions on Total Revenue ($K) 1,902.3$ 2,011.3$ 109.0$ 5.7%9 Subsidy - DPC, West & Polytechnic ($K) 391.7$ 1,381.6$ 989.9$ 252.7%
10 Commissions Paid to ASU ($K) (Commission less Subsidy) 1,723.3$ 629.7$ (1,093.6)$ -63.5%11 Commission % 6.35% 6.07% -0.28% -4.35%
No CatergoryYTD Prior
Year YTD Actual Actual vs PYVar Act. vs PY %
1 Number of Mandatory Meal Plans Sold 5,361 6,159 798 14.9%2 Number of Voluntary Meal Plans Sold 2,128 2,882 755 35.5%3 Customer (Student) Satisfaction Survery (1 - 10 (2x/yr) 7.34 7.27 -0.07 -1.0%
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
Performance Metrics – Combined ASU
FY 2010
No Category
YTD Prior Year - ADJUSTED wk 6
Sep YTD Actual YTD BudgetVar Act. vs
PYVar Act. vs
PY %Var Act. vs
BudgetVar Act. Vs Budget %
1 Mandatory Meal Plan Sales - Meals ($K) (Meal Swipes) 7,914.4$ 14,609.2$ 12,531.2$ 6,694.8$ 84.6% 2,078.0$ 16.6%
2 Voluntary Meal Plan Sales - Meals($K) (Meal Swipes) 390.5$ 372.4$ 264.7$ (18.1)$ -4.6% 107.7$ 40.7%
3 Retail Sales ($K) (Sun $, M&G Vol, M&G Mandatory and Cash & Credit Cards)16,756.8$ 17,656.1$ 22,697.4$ 899.2$ 5.4% (5,041.3)$ -22.2%
4 Catering Sales ($K) 2,475.5$ 2,502.0$ 2,733.4$ 26.5$ 1.1% (231.4)$ -8.5%
5 Camp/Conference Sales ($K) 865.2$ 822.1$ 648.9$ (43.1)$ -5.0% 173.2$ 26.7%
6 All Other Sales (Subcontractors & Sushi) ($K) 3,703.3$ 3,793.8$ 5,169.6$ 90.5$ 2.4% (1,375.8)$ -26.6%
7 TOTAL REVENUE 32,105.7$ 39,755.5$ 44,045.1$ 7,649.8$ 23.8% (4,289.6)$ -9.7%
8 Commissions on Total Revenue ($K) 2,011.2$ 2,413.2$ 2,673.5$ 402.0$ 20.0% (260.4)$ -9.7%
9 Subsidy - DPC, West & Polytechnic ($K) 1,202.3$ 604.6$ 1,157.6$ (597.7)$ -49.7% (553.0)$ -47.8%
10Commissions Paid to ASU ($K) (Commission on Total Revenue less Subsidy) 803.7$ 1,808.5$ 1,515.9$ 1,004.9$ 125.0% 292.6$ 19.3%11 Commission % 6.07% 6.07% 6.07%
No Category YTD Prior Year YTD ActualYTD
BudgetActual vs
PYVar Act. vs PY %
Var Act. vs Budget
Var Act. Vs
Budget %
1 Number of Mandatory Meal Plans Sold 6,133 7,573 7,843 1,455 23.6% -229 -2.9%
2 Number of Voluntary Meal Plans Sold 2,882 4,056 2,215 1,174 40.7% 1841 83.1%
Financial Performance Metrics
Performance Metrics
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 9090
U of MN ObjectivesU of MN Objectives The UMN has a goal to be recognized as a top research institution in the world
In 2005, CPPM partnered with the PBSRG (ASU) to implement the PIPS Best Value Process
CPPM’s Objectives of the Best-Value Program are to: Contract to high performers Respond faster to customer needs Increase performance (on time, on budget, high quality)
Increase efficiency of procurement (spend taxpayers money more efficient)
Create a fair and open process for all vendors
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 91
CPPM Strategic Plan CPPM Strategic Plan First organization to establish and follow a Strategic Plan
Ultimate Goal: CPPM take over entire program and is successful in implementing and sustaining the program. Year 1 – Pilot Testing Year 2 – Evaluation and Continued Testing Year 3 – Expansion Year 4 – Expansion Year 5 – Infusion & Transition Year 6 – Transition
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 92
CPPM Strategic Plan CPPM Strategic Plan Year 1 Identify and educate core group Identify qualified vendors Implement best-value Analyze pilot projects
Year 2 Continue testing best-value Evaluate core group and refine Expand test to different trades (General
Construction) Educate more internal CPPM staff Implement a weekly project tracking
system Refine list of qualified vendors Educate and debrief qualified vendors on
initial project results
Year 3 Allow other CPPM personnel to test Automated online Directors Report Monitor all CPPM projects (LB & BV) Expand testing (A/E Services) Identify performance of UMN PM’s,
Procurement, other critical areas, etc. Train CPPM on all BV components
Year 4 CPPM acquire and perform all best-value
functions (educate and train) PBSRG assist on areas of weakness CPPM handle analysis and tracking of all
weekly reports Implement best-value on a larger scale Educate other UMN groups (Energy,
Zones, Permitting, Codes, ect)
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 93
No Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
1 Education / Training / Debriefing 0% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
2 Data Collection (PPI) on Vendors 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
3 Proposal Analysis / Review / Rating 0% 25% 75% 75% 100% 100%
4 Modeling / Identification of Best-Value 0% 0% 0% 25% 50% 100%
5 Weekly Risk Reporting System 0% 0% 25% 25% 75% 100%
6 Directors Reporting 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
7 Documentation and Analysis 0% 0% 0% 25% 50% 75%
8 Modification / Evolution / Updating 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Transitional PlanTransitional Plan
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 94
Award Analysis: Number of Best-Value Procurements: 161 Awarded Cost: $50.6M (11% below average cost) Average Number of Proposals: 4 Projects Where Best-Value was also Lowest Cost: 53% 85% of projects were awarded to vendor with highest / second highest
RAVA Plan (7.3 vs 5.9)
Performance Information: Contractor Impacts: 0% Change Orders / 4% Delay Vendor post project rating: 9.6 Average Contractor Increase in Profit: 5%
Current Construction Current Construction ResultsResults
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 95
PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4
Procurement Officer 1 Procurement Officer 2
Director
Contractor 1
Contractor 2
Contractor 3
Contractor 4
Contractor 3
Contractor 6
Contractor 1
Contractor 8
Contractor 9
Contractor 7
Contractor 7
Contractor 2
Contractor 4
Contractor 8
Contractor 9
Contractor 2
Program ReportProgram Report
Director 1 Director 2
PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4
Vice President
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 96
Report – Overall ProgramReport – Overall Program
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 97
Report - DirectorsReport - Directors
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 98
Report - End UsersReport - End Users TEAM 1
(President / University / Admin)
TEAM 2Academic Health
Center
TEAM 3Provost College
1 Total Number of Projects 19 14 52 Percent of Projects Procured Using PIPS 79% 86% 80%3 Total Awarded Cost: $5,359,995 $2,821,005 $2,353,7614 Average Number of Risks per Project 3 8 12
5 Overall Owner Impacts (Time & Cost) 7.7% 41.3% 41.1%6 Owner Change Order Rate 0.6% 3.4% 20.0%7 Owner Delay Rate 7.2% 37.8% 21.1%8 Percent of Projects without Owner Cost Changes 63% 36% 80%9 Percent of Projects without Owner Delays 68% 50% 80%
10 Overall Contractor Impacts (Time & Cost) 8.1% 19.6% 14.8%11 Contractor Change Order Rate 0.1% 0.1% -0.8%12 Contractor Delay Rate 8.0% 19.6% 15.6%13 Percent of Projects without Contractor Cost Changes 95% 93% 100%14 Percent of Projects without Contractor Delays 79% 79% 60%
15 Total Number of Completed Projects 4 2 116 Total Number of Client Surveys Returned 3 2 117 Percent of Projects Evaluated by Client 75% 100% 100%18 Average PM Post Project Rating of Contractor 6.75 10 1019 Average Client Post Project Rating of Contractor 7.7 8.5 8.020 Average Client Post Project Rating of CPPM 10.7 8.5 7.0
Contractor Impacts
Owner Impacts
Satisfaction Ratings
General Overview
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 99
Report – Internal PM’sReport – Internal PM’s
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 100
Report - ContractorsReport - Contractors
No ContractorTotal
Number of Projects
Total Awarded Cost:
Owner Change Order Rate
Owner Delay Rate
Vendor Change Order Rate
Vendor Delay Rate
Percent of Late Reports
Vendor Performance
1 Contractor 118 3 $ 721,965 0.3% 18.1% 0.2% 66.8% 53% 120%2 Contractor 119 3 $ 220,002 0.7% 10.4% 0.0% 0.0% 69% 69%3 Contractor 120 1 $ 269,850 9.4% 303.0% 0.0% 18.2% 47% 65%4 Contractor 104 3 $ 459,225 1.6% 2.7% 0.0% 18.8% 37% 56%5 Contractor 121 1 $ 241,575 0.0% 21.9% 2.7% 50.0% 0% 53%6 Contractor 105 8 $ 1,611,015 0.3% 32.9% 0.0% 16.3% 32% 49%7 Contractor 106 9 $ 1,280,362 2.2% 31.1% 0.7% 3.2% 35% 39%8 Contractor 122 3 $ 367,650 0.0% 79.1% 0.0% 1.4% 37% 38%9 Contractor 107 1 $ 178,440 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 11.4% 25% 37%
10 Contractor 123 2 $ 3,227,182 14.9% 0.0% -0.6% 5.4% 30% 35%11 Contractor 108 2 $ 327,295 0.0% 135.4% 0.0% 0.0% 32% 32%12 Contractor 124 1 $ 69,218 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 31% 31%13 Contractor 125 3 $ 1,150,738 1.9% 7.3% 0.0% 4.2% 26% 30%14 Contractor 109 5 $ 534,095 2.0% 23.2% 0.0% 0.0% 29% 29%15 Contractor 126 1 $ 323,000 3.3% 3.4% 0.0% 6.8% 22% 29%16 Contractor 110 1 $ 308,882 1.2% 24.8% 0.0% 0.0% 27% 27%17 Contractor 127 7 $ 1,793,355 3.8% 13.6% 0.0% 0.0% 26% 26%18 Contractor 128 4 $ 2,956,800 1.3% 1.7% 0.0% 12.2% 11% 23%19 Contractor 129 6 $ 1,319,789 2.2% 16.2% 0.0% 11.0% 9% 21%20 Contractor 111 4 $ 1,096,707 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 9.8% 10% 19%21 Contractor 112 1 $ 446,100 0.0% 6.9% 0.0% 0.0% 15% 15%22 Contractor 113 3 $ 552,815 5.1% 29.4% 0.0% 7.0% 8% 15%23 Contractor 114 2 $ 1,841,157 13.0% 215.8% 0.0% 0.0% 13% 13%24 Contractor 130 4 $ 795,791 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12% 12%25 Contractor 101 4 $ 322,400 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8% 8%26 Contractor 115 3 $ 753,660 10.9% 54.7% 0.0% 0.0% 7% 7%27 Contractor 102 1 $ 14,150 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0%28 Contractor 116 1 $ 109,710 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0%
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 101
Report – Yearly AnalysisReport – Yearly Analysis
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 102
Report – Top 10 Riskiest Report – Top 10 Riskiest ProjectsProjects
No Project Awarded CostAwarded Duration
Overall Change Order Rate
Overall Delay Rate
Percent of Late Reports
Risk Analysis Factor
PM Director
1 Mayo Remodel Suite A652 $ 269,850 66 9% 321% 47% 377% Wycliffe Waganda Gary Summerville
2 Barn Clean Renovations $ 269,000 80 2% 166% 60% 229% Wycliffe Waganda Justin Grussing
3 WBOB Remodel Suite 150 $ 273,100 99 1% 96% 37% 134% Pete Nickel Gary Summerville
4 Vet Sciences Third Floor $ 96,930 49 3% 86% 28% 116% Pete Nickel Gary Summerville
5Weaver Densford College of Pharmacy
$ 90,862 28 2% 25% 80% 107% Pete Nickel Gary Summerville
6 PWB Remodel Suite 6-240 $ 127,338 82 17% 23% 64% 104% Steve Bailey Gary Summerville
7 PWB Room 7-158B $ 46,504 30 0% 0% 100% 100% Pete Nickel Gary Summerville
8Oak Street Parking Surveillance
$ 246,802 74 0% 0% 100% 100% George Mahowald Justin Grussing
9 Snyder Bldg Exterior Door $ 219,000 121 -4% 81% 22% 100% Wycliffe Waganda Justin Grussing
10 Heller Hall Renovation $ 1,593,561 254 29% 0% 50% 79% Matt Stringfellow Justin Grussing
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 103
Report – Analysis of RisksReport – Analysis of Risks
Risk CategoryNumber of
RisksImpact to
CostImpact to Schedule
Percent Impact to
Cost
Percent Impact to Schedule
1) Client Impacts 114 $660,369 1,200 59% 46%Client Scope Change / Decision 111 660,369$ 976 59% 37%
Client Requested Delay 3 -$ 224 0% 9%
2) CPPM Impacts 135 $329,425 885 30% 34%Design Issue 48 189,876$ 230 17% 9%
CPPM Issue (Codes / Permits) 36 46,140$ 170 4% 7%
CPPM Issue (Energy Mgmt) 2 47,533$ 30 4% 1%
CPPM Issue (Hazardous / Health & Safety) 8 35,407$ 118 3% 5%
CPPM Issue (NTS) 8 10,018$ 64 1% 2%
CPPM Issue (Contract / Payment) 11 -$ 132 0% 5%
CPPM Issue (Other) 22 451$ 141 0% 5%
3) Contractor Impacts 43 $21,005 411 2% 16%Contractor Issue 11 -$ 101 0% 4%
Contractor Oversight of Design 9 21,005$ 38 2% 1%
Contractor Issue with Supplier / Sub 23 -$ 272 0% 10%
4) Unforeseen Impacts 19 $102,544 111 9% 4%311 1,113,343$ 2,607
W W W . P B S R G . C O M
Research from Contractor DelaysResearch from Contractor Delays
Contractor Risks %
Delivery of Materials Delayed 28%
Installation errors 26%
Incorrect material ordered or delivered 11%
Alteration of installation needed 9%
Manufacture didn't have sufficient materials 9%
Misunderstanding of Construction Documents 6%
Door Frames incorrect size 4%
Soil compaction 2%
104
52% of risks due to errors in materials delivered
W W W . P B S R G . C O M 105
Targeted Business GroupTargeted Business Group(Minority & Disadvantaged)(Minority & Disadvantaged)
Out of 63 qualified contractors, 18 are TGB (29%)
Out of 161 PIPS Projects, 26 were awarded to TGB Contractors (16%)
Awards were based on best-value, which shows that there are high performing TGB vendors in the MN community